Prince Harry and Meghan Back UK Over US Tech-Shift Away From America
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle backed a move by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to ban social media for children under 16 in their latest show of support for the British government in an area of conflict with the United States.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have campaigned on the harms of social media since 2020 and previously welcomed a similar ban introduced in Australia.
Their latest comments are notable because regulation of U.S. technology companies has been a source of significant tension between the American and British governments. Their intervention-whether intentional or not-deviates from the White House worldview at a time when Harry has been making regular overtures to the United Kingdom.
What Harry and Meghan Said About UK Policy
The U.K. government plans to ban children under 16 from using major social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and X, with rules expected to take effect from spring 2027. Messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal will not be affected, and the changes are expected to take effect from spring 2027.
The government’s website states that “16 and 17 year olds will still be able to access social media, but live streaming, and stranger communication including in gaming, will be switched off by default for these ages.”
Meghan has an Instagram account, but otherwise, the couple is not on social media.
Harry and Meghan said in a statement released to Newsweek: “We welcome the UK Government's announcement of new measures to better protect children online.”
“The burden cannot rest solely on parents and children,” Harry and Meghan said. “It must also be borne by the companies. Until then, every day without meaningful change is another day that children remain exposed to preventable harm. Stronger protections are better than inaction, and today's announcement is a welcome step forward.”
They added a note of caution: “While measures such as these may help reduce harm, they do not fix the problem at its source. Lasting change requires safer platforms by design, meaningful accountability, and a commitment to putting children's wellbeing ahead of engagement and profit.”
That reservation was not a pushback against regulation but rather a call for further tech reform.
US Government Opposition to Social Media Regulation
American opposition to a U.K. ban on children using social media has been explicit, with the Trump administration intervening formally to urge ministers not to proceed.
In a submission to the government's consultation, the U.S. Embassy in London warned against what it described as "broad social media bans," arguing that such measures would risk undermining free expression while placing heavy obligations on platforms.
Officials instead argued that "most content should remain accessible by default, including political speech," setting out a broader objection to blanket restrictions which they argued placed “disproportionate compliance burdens on American companies."
The U.S. Embassy also said it favored “empowering parents and legal guardians with robust tools to manage their children's privacy settings, screen time, content exposure, and account controls.”
This contrasts with Harry and Meghan’s assertion that “the burden cannot rest solely on parents and children.”
The issue of tech regulation in British-American diplomatic relations is bigger than this single issue, though, and has been framed in terms of the U.S. national interest by President Donald Trump.
In July 2025, a U.S. State Department official told TheTelegraph: “President Trump has made it clear that free speech is one of our most cherished freedoms as Americans.
“Accordingly, we have taken decisive action against foreign actors who have engaged in extraterritorial censorship affecting our companies and fellow citizens. We will continue to monitor developments in the UK with great interest and concern.”
Trump also spoke out personally in April to oppose Britain’s Digital Services Tax, which imposes a 2 percent tax on social media, search engines and online marketplaces.
"I don't like it when they target American companies, because basically, you're talking about our great American companies, whether we like those companies that don't like them, they're American companies and the top companies in the world,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
"We've been looking at it, and we can meet that very easily by just putting a big tariff on the U.K. So they better be careful. If they don't drop the tax, we'll probably put a big tariff on the U.K."
The Trump administration's opposition to a U.K. ban is rooted not only in concerns about free speech but also in a wider worldview in which American technology companies are seen as national assets. Measures that restrict their operations overseas-whether taxes, content rules or age-based access limits-are treated as part of a trans-Atlantic dispute. The result is a clear U.S.-versus-U.K. framing of tech regulation.
How Harry and Meghan’s Comment Compares to Past Statements
This is not the first time Meghan and Harry have supported a social media ban for children under 16. Their Archewell Foundation, since renamed Archewell Philanthropies, released a statement when Australia brought in similar rules, though with some striking similarities and differences.
"We celebrate Australia's leadership for seeing and acting on how these technology companies are negatively impacting young people with little to no recourse or accountability, and feeble efforts from the companies to stem the flow of harms," Harry and Meghan wrote in the December statement published on their website.
"This bold, decisive action to protect children at a critical moment in their development sends a strong signal that a child's mind is not a commodity to be exploited."
Some of the language they used then signaled more emphatic support than they have shown to the U.K., but the general thrust of their words was similar on both occasions.
They voiced a similar caveat about redesigning platforms, saying: “Young people know they will live their lives with these platforms whether it's now or later in life. They are calling for technology that is safe by default and design, not as a reaction to avoidable, sometimes fatal, harm.”
That statement did express optimism about the U.S., though, which was absent in their reaction to Britain’s ban.
“American innovation has been at the forefront of bringing change for good in the world,” they wrote in December, “we hope for a course correction to get back to that place with these technologies involved in our every waking moment.
“We look forward to the next step to hold tech accountable for its design choices and hope leaders of new technologies learn the lessons of failing to prioritize the well-being of young people.”
Prince Harry’s Shifting Stance on the U.S.
This shift comes against the backdrop of a broader shift in focus exhibited by Prince Harry since Trump’s reelection, as Newsweek has mapped in detail before.
His most recent public comments praising his U.S. life were in February 2024, when he said “it's amazing” and “I love every single day,” before confirming that he had considered citizenship.
More recently, though, his tone toward the U.S. has shifted, pushing back on Trump’s foreign policy regarding Ukraine. At a security conference in Kyiv, he warned that the U.S. had an obligation to support the country’s defense against Russian invasion, not as charity but because those were the terms under which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s.
And he spoke out after Trump suggested NATO forces, which include the British Army in which Harry served in Afghanistan, “stayed a little back” from the front lines in that war.
Harry said in a statement: “Thousands of lives were changed forever. Mothers and fathers buried sons and daughters. Children were left without a parent. Families are left carrying the cost. Those sacrifices deserve to be spoken about truthfully and with respect, as we all remain united and loyal to the defense of diplomacy and peace."
Meanwhile, his public statements have recently become more positive about the U.K. In November 2025, Harry wrote in an essay on British identity: “Though currently, I may live in the United States, Britain is, and always will be, the country I proudly served and fought for.
“The banter of the mess, the clubhouse, the pub, the stands-ridiculous as it sounds, these are the things that make us British. I make no apology for it. I love it.”
Taken alone, the latest statement fits neatly into the couple’s existing work on the harms caused by social media, but when considered alongside the wider context of Harry’s shift in focus from the U.S. to the U.K., their words take on additional significance.
2026 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
This story was originally published June 16, 2026 at 6:33 AM.